Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omran Daqneesh

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No Consensus, which defaults to Keep. A Train^talk 15:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Omran Daqneesh

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While the photograph of the subject is certainly wildly circulated, at this time, it is not evident if this coverage will last (WP:NOTNEWS) and it does not seem this subject satisfies WP:ONEEVENT. The article can always be recreated at a later date. Opted for AfD, really, rather than a speedy (what I initially opted for) or a prod, because I realized the deletion maybe isn't as uncontroversial as I initially assessed it to be. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 03:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Pft. Felt like I was forgetting a step. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 03:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Omran Daqneesh is not yet sufficiently notable to justify a wikipedia pageSassmouth (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, clearly meets general notability guidelinesOrangepeel88 (talk) 21:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC) ~~Blocked sock. John Jaffar Janardan (talk) 05:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)~~ A comment by a sock, struck when the sock was blocked, struck by another sock, now blocked...jeez. Vanamonde (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant page Pivox (talk) 11:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nom: the three !votes above do not give a strong argument for their position. As for the subject meeting WP:GNG, while the image has been reprinted widely by many major news outlets, the coverage is largely similar description of the same information, and then more general coverage about the Syrian Civil War. Much of the in-depth coverage doesn't address the subject directly, but rather uses the subject as a platform to address a related topic in depth; I do not feel this counts toward notability. The event happened only on Wednesday; Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and it is not our job to report on everything that captures widespread media attention. Articles are based on enduring significance, and it is currently unclear if this subject or the subject's image will have that. (For comparison, see Death of Alan Kurdi, especially Death of Alan Kurdi § Debate on the public responses to the pictures, Death of Alan Kurdi § Impact on the 2015 Canadian federal election, Death of Alan Kurdi § Legacy. Link to article at the time of its AfD.) The Omran Daqneesh images have not garnered that level of significance. The photograph and video footage has yet to garner the kind of depth that would warrant an article, either as a biography or an event, and the media interest alone is not enough to warrant an article. As I stated in my nom, if the interest and coverage continues, the article can be recreated at a later date. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 00:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for the reasons given by TenTonParasol. Certainly it's imaginable that he'll continue to be in the news, and not only for appearance in one photograph (cf Kim Phúc); if this happens, then he should get an article. -- Hoary (talk) 00:34, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being shown in film footage is almost never alone enough to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The photograph itself gained a moment attention, but no in-depth coverage for the Omran is available. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even IF the photograph itself was notable as a news event (which it isn't), the subject most certainly is not. WWGB (talk) 08:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Event / photograph / footage has/d global impact on the public opinion (more specifically, opinions concerning the Russian involvement in the Syrian Civil War). Could lead to a shift in the course of the Syrian Civil War. See Category:Vietnam War photographs and Category:Spanish Civil War photographs. Stefanomione (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't seen any sources stating a tangible shift in public opinion or policy shifts or any other kind of shift. Though, my ability to find sources has been lacking lately because of focus issues. If there are sources, I would be glad to add them to the article myself, and if there are enough to establish notability, I would be glad to withdraw my nom. But, "could", we're not a crystal ball; an article isn't based on the possibility of notability. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 17:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I used this page on 22 August 2016 after reading that Omran Daqneesh's brother Ali had died of wounds sustained in the same bombing. Previously I had never heard of Omran Daqneesh, but I don't usually use social media. ☺ Dick Kimball (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , but it's content can be merged into other articles dealing with the civil war in Syria. Wikipedia is not a place for propaganda. The same photographer took pictures and happily made selfies with anti-Assad rebels, while they were decapitating a 11 years old boy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jifS0fi9WB8 He had no problem with that, only with the Russians. Should we create a separate article on this later boy as well? I don't think so...--Ltbuni (talk) 16:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This story made front-page around the world. Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 08:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with some possibility of Merge or Redirect into an appropriate target page. Seems to fail WP:BLP1E, but the person and photo have been covered in many global, reliable sources such as The New York Times.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Absolutely symbol child for Syrian civil war. See this google search and other news.--Kingbjelica (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage that includes identity of individual discussed in article. Calibrador (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this actually amounts to convincing independent notability which is needed, none of this suggests it is something actually kept for both convincing and substance thus delete. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keepGiven the continuing comment, and in particular the NYTimes statement that the picture will prove to be symbolic of the war, "How Omran Daqneesh, 5, Became a Symbol of Aleppo’s Suffering" [1] and that the image " stood out among all the other recent images of children in war-torn areas" [2] and [[3] DGG ( talk ) 22:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.~~Comment~~: I assume we are talking about this picture. This appears to be the case of WP:1E. If this subject is notable, then I highly recommend that we create pages for this, this and this also (if not done already) since they also made it to the "front / cover pages" of thousands of papers, magazines, blogs, articles and other publications around the world and were very famous at their time. ~~If the other three subjects are not notable, then I recommend we delete this article as well~~. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We do have an article for the second one actually: Death of Alan Kurdi ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 16:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Converting my comment to keep vote since the other examples I quoted, two out of three pictures indeed have independent articles on them. Article Afghan Girl is dedicated to this picture, article Death of Alan Kurdi belongs to this article whilst there is a notable mention in article Kevin Carter about this picture. Please don't slap Other stuff exists on my face; this is just my opinion. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Omran and other children are a symbol for sufferings in syria. We can remember Omran and other kids with this page.
Keep - This picture was circulated world wide. It has gained similar attention to Alan Kurdi. As Alan Kurdi has a page I wouldn't see why Omran shouldn't have a page. People around the world are very interested in who this boy is and how he ended up in this situation. The picture is almost becoming the picture for the suffering of the Syrian People. No reason not to keep it. In fact I'm considering to translate this article into German. I do also want to add that this boy may potentially become the Phan Thi Kim Phuc of this generation next to Alan Kurdi. --Earlyspatz^Talk 12:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.